I’ve been watching an interesting process play out on Anne’s blog. She’s been trying to engage her social network to generate donations for Soles for Souls. They’re trying to raise money to provide 50,000 pairs of shoes to people who need them within 50 days.
What’s interesting to me is that Anne shared the fact that about 3,500 people have blogged about or promoted the cause in some form or fashion, but only 1,500 have actually made a donation.
Stories like this make me wonder…
- Why is there a disconnect between what people say and what people do?
- Anne has certainly made an impact, but, generally speaking, are social networks really that powerful if they don’t lead to action?
- Has the MySpace and Facebook generation started substituting talking about good things with actually doing good things?
- When does the online generation lose credibility when the offline generation still carries the load financially and with their time?
I don’t have data. Maybe my perception is just based on poor anecdoctal evidence. Or, maybe the online generation is all talk and no bite.
Now, excuse me while I go Twitter…
"Has the MySpace and Facebook generation started substituting talking about good things with actually doing good things?"
Amazing Question.
My answer: Absolutely. Christians have done this for years…we just now have an outlet to do it much more publicly.
I think you might be onto something… I will have to keep my eyes out for more of that in play to see. I think if you look at the election you saw this play out. The generational battle and the say v. the action. It has always been easier to talk than back it with the walk???
Excellent questions, Tony. I've asked them myself. Being me, I did it like I've done "real life" and purchased before I talked about it… what's wrong with me?
no apologies for being the optimist here..
WOW!! 1500 people have donated toward the cause – tremendous! imagine all the people that will be helped through this effort. regardless of all the people blowing smoke on their blog…their are going to be souls with new soles. way to go anne!
Direct mail marketing is delirious with a return of 3%.
That is why such huge volume is sent out.
A blog of 3,500 getting contribution of 1,500 is a rate of return of over 23%.
By any measure, it is a whopping success.
With social network groups rebuilding New Orleans one house at a time, doing missions in the dumps of Mexico City, providing help to the tsunami victims of Christmas past, and myriad more activity, I find it peculiar to generalize a generation by on act of blog.
Social networking has many flaws for the upcoming generations.
To marshal the masses is NOT one of them.
The only activity that will claim 100% participation by social network generation, and all generations, is death.
These kids are doing a fabulous job.
When I first saw people posting their donation receipts I was shocked. I thought they were bragging about the good they were doing. I have been watching the 50,000 shoe thing closely and was disappointed that people were talking about it but not doing anything about it. All Ann Asked for was $5.00 donation. If 3500 people had done just that….WOW. And if one person who read their blog or email donated…even bigger wow.
It is a little disappointing, but then again right now over 10,000 people will have shoes for the first time!
I like Danny's assessment. As I told Anne not too long ago, such a return is indicative of millenials. We are, as a whole, non-committal and need to be dared into challenges. Sad, but true. I'd just expect it to avoid disappointment and figure out how to maximize returns under the expectation that many are going to sign up and not do anything.
agree with danny – I think your cynicism is off base, tony. particularly this phrase "offline generation still carries the load financially and with their time". um – irony alert – you posted this on a blog.
now for non-irony alert – there is no "real world" or "offline generation" – people spend 43% of their time connected to a network of some kind.
look at the collective efforts that have taken flight online – countless non-profits, responses to disaster of epic or personal level.
the most recent example that gives me hope is JOIN THE IMPACT http://jointheimpact.com/
imagine if a faith community or a neighborhood had that kind of response rate and that level of engagement. whoa, it would astounding
i am 46 and my sense of that your term "all talk and no bite" applies much more to boomers than to the current generation. christian smith has done great work researching what teenagers think of their parents in church – your phrase "disconnect between what people say and what people do" is verbatim what he found over & over again
tony, you are not typically this cynical – what's up ?
@DannyLucas
What I read into Tony's post is that at least 2000 who have blogged about the importance of giving to this cause haven't themselves done anything about it other than blog about it.
If you feel strongly enough to blog about it, shouldn't you participate?
rick and danny -
you took the words right out of my mouth. while i too wish there were more who would back their talk (or in this case text) with some action…
…to have 1500 people donate towards this effort (out of 3500) is an incredible feat. Online or offline – those are some good stats.
The medium can be a great tool – as long as the message is greater.
Great job Anne.
Good post Tony.
"Has the MySpace and Facebook generation started substituting talking about good things with actually doing good things?"
"Has the church started substituting talking about good things with actually doing good things?"
I really don't think social media, or the generation who uses it, is to blame.
It's word of mouth marketing. Just like it's good for bloggers & twitters to help promote conferences – even though they might not be attending!
I say the more buzz, the better! I'd say a lot of the "online generation" doesn't have the financial resources the "offline generation" has. Maybe because they spend their time working… while we… um… well… tweet!
@Jeff Brown, I look at it a little differently. I don't think I have to personally give to everything I blog about. I have people hit me up all the time to promote their causes. If I think it's a good cause and I trust that person I often blog about it.
Even if it's something I'm not personally passionate about I want to at least let my readers know about an opportunity to give or serve. Maybe it's something THEY feel led to be a part of.
Just because I agree to promote your cause does not mean that I'm personally signing on to give to it or participate in it. If you have that expectation of me it needs to be communicated and agreed to on the front end.
If 3500 people take the time to blog about the need for shoes I think it's a great thing. It means they saw a genuine need they wanted to put before the body of Christ. Let's not make them feel guilty because they didn't respond to the need in the way we had hoped.
Comment 1 of 2 (These comments are artificially clipped here)
"If you feel srongly enough to blog about it, shouldn't you participate?
~~~Jeff Brown
I believe that the blogging itself IS a form of participation. The bloggers are spreading the word, new links pick it up, and the word spreads exponentially.
Bloggers have a constant need for new information to post, and new topics. They can NOT come up with 100% originality every time out.
To that extent, they link to one another for ideas to expand upon. That linking often pays the bill of a cancer victim, rebuilds the home of a burned out family due to fire, or elects a President.
If all it took to participate was cash, all problems of mankind would be resolved by the wallet.
on the positive side…that is almost 30,000 raised in a month through blogs via total strangers. that is pretty cool.
maybe we shot too high? dreamt too big?
i celebrate the 1500 or so who have given….the 10k+ shoes that will be distributed. i do wish it was 50k. but i have to refocus my goal from hitting a certain # to realizing the impact it has made.
i don't understand why the other 2000 can't give $5, but that's for them to wrestle with. not me.
must…let…go.
Comment 2 of 2 (clipped from the first)
The fact that a blogger chose to blog on this shoe stuff meant they found the topic worthy to discuss, enlarge, and pass along. Giving cash on top of that is a miracle. God bless 'em.
Should a newspaper reported hand out $5 to every story he covers that needs funded? I think not. He helps by getting the story out.
This blog situation would be enormous if not one blogger contributed cash, but all the cash needed was committed by readers of the blog.
Incidentally, we all do the precise same thing as we march by a Salvation Army bell ringer every Christmas. Who contributes to every pot they pass?
I am most upset that an inferred "all talk no action" myth is created here and , thanks to blog links, will be perpetuated. Not every audience can think to the level of discernment of this audience.
great post Tony. My questions would be does the heart match the abiltiy. This geneartion's heart & desire is to care for the underresourced, however, financial abiltiy may not give them the oppourtunity to do much about it. Scripture calls us to give our firsts and our best, a concept that we all have to develop in our own life.
I am one of those who posted about it and gave. For me the blogging it was about letting other people know about it and trying to get the word out any way I could. The participation part was easy because it was $5 to jump in.
I'm with Anne in wishing more people would've given, but I do think that Tony raises an appropriate challenge in how much our social networking/relationships lead to actionable steps. I love all the opportunities for growth that being a part of these communities have afforded me and am continually thinking/praying about how to leverage these modes of communication to help those I serve grow and move us to action for others.
He gave some to blog and some to buy shoes.
Very interesting point, because I know myself, and a fellow staff member over here both blogged about it, and I know I gave before I blogged about it, and I am fairly certain that my fellow blogger not only blogged but he gave twice on two different occasions…. so… if that is 100% from over here plus one, how many others gave more than once?
That would even further reduce the actual number of people blogging to actions.
You bring up a great point though… if all we do is just talk back and forth and never accomplish anything tangible for the Lord, what good is it? There still might be some good out of it, but does it further the goals of your organization and ultimately the Kingdom.
Hey Tony, I've shared some of the same frustrations and I've promoted certain things on my blog (like the 50k shoes challenge) and watched people click just about everything else on my blog instead of the 50k link!
I am an optimist though… those 10,000 pairs are a remarkable achievement! If there wasn't a 50k goal then nobody would be upset in any way!
It's awesome that you're looking at it positively, Ryan. I too am excited that 10,000 pairs have been donated. You're right that without that goal, people wouldn't be upset.
But I'm still bothered by the massive difference in online 50K followers and actual 50K givers. I'm not a fan of being hypocritical, so I made sure I placed at least one donation before my post went live. But I'm saddened to think that people would support a cause simply by clicking "join" to a Facebook group invitation or by blogging about it and not actually donate. Regardless of the existence of a goal, I really think we need to "put our money where our mouths are," to borrow the old cliché.
But I digress. I really need to learn how to be less judgmental. I always get into trouble saying these kinds of things.
Good word, Tony. Exactly why I haven’t spread the word about it myself. Great cause – I just haven’t contributed to it myself.
I think on some level the online generation might still be hesitant to support individual missions via the web because they are concerned about security. I’m a fan of Facebook’s “Causes” application, it allows you to invite your friends to join a cause and donate money. Working for a church I try and give back in other ways a lot too because I don’t always have an extra $50 lying around though.
[...] for the under resourced and what “appears” as their inability to give financially. Tony Morgan actually blogged about this recently. Anne’s point of reference that spurred Tony’s [...]
The mantra of minimum commitment is shown here. There's a generation that has been raised to think that praying for something is equal to doing something. As Furtick says, "Pray for God to do what only He can do, while you do what only you can do." In other words, pray AND do.
For too long, spreading awareness has been considered philanthropy. That sucks and it's not true.
Your first bullet speaks to the disconnect between what people say and what they do. Your first comment is a trackback to another blog that supports Tony's view in this post.
The trackback is both blogger and pastor.
His post supports what Tony says, and adds this line:
"There is one more reason I can say because it’s why I choose not to blog or give to Soles 4 Souls… because of my giving strategy".
Speaking of disconnects……. is it that hard to even blog a post for helping out?
I scooted to flowerdust.net to see the original too. Plug that location and the word technorati into Google and her blog ranking is a far cry from 3/4 of the world population as followers (as proclaimed by trackbacker)..
She is giving away a WII to get more funds.
This is a surreal form of philanthropy, albeit a wonderful objective.
There is no discernable way to tell if the bloggers who gave $5 or didn't are millenial or old coots. I find no relationship to the hypothesis and conclusions, the closer I look. Stories like this make me wonder too, but my bullet list would pose different wonders. I'm learnin'. Decent post.
perhaps we become so focused on our own impact…(aka making a difference) … which in a backwards way becomes selfishly focusing on our personal significance. twitter/blogs/facebook all can easily quickly become self-focused useless mirrors of our popularity. This can really hurt a cause…. we get in the way.
I think that this is lost in the hundreds of appeals and requests that come in on a consistent basis. Everyone has their favorite, valid concern to focus on. I'd say that the real issue is that most are already vested and directed in their giving…water wells, mosquito netting, shoes, education, micro-enterprises, bible translation, homeless shelters, disaster relief, tithing, food boxes, building projects, clothing drives…
It is easy to become a little numb to the continual appeals and get a bit of giving fatigue. Holy Spirit directed giving of God's resources from hearts of generosity is the goal.
Danny, thanks for reading my blog. It appears you disagree with me on a couple of points. First, I think Tony is raising a great question and I think people have good reasons for choosing not to give. The point I was making is you can have maximum impact with your giving if you are strategic. Second, I know 3/4 of the world don't read flowerdust.net I just like to tease her about her blog celebrity status. I work at the same church with Anne and have a deep respect for her. It was all in good fun!
22 Words gives you 22 words.
Twitter gives you 140 words.
This site need learn that the internet is very large once you get inside.
Open the comment space so nuance and depth can occur, instead of the dreaded split and double post.
Here we go again with 1 of 2:
Hello Pat Rowland !
We are called upon to edify and build up.
The bullets above do nothing of the sort for the newest generation of saints to be. Are the queries fair? Yes. It is a cup half full/ half empty dilemma.
I am grateful to those who gave, …….. words or money.
Strategic giving sounds like a good way to learn "NO" when asked by the multitudes to perform miracles for them. It works until my neighbor's house burns down, or my cousin gets cancer. Bye strategy.
Here's 2 of 2, tho really the same one comment.
A friend in Amsterdam asked me to escort Elizabeth Rapuleng of South Africa to NYC Foundations to help Aids orphans (she has over 500 alone -see Google). I lived in Bethlehem at the time. and we met Soros and Clinton Foundation types, and the rest (well attempted).. Miserly was a response, in the same week $10 million was spent for Hollywood movies by one foundation. Elizabeth fell in love with Jim Cymbala's church. Perhaps I am touchy due to experience on philanthropy.
We need to applaud the younger generation in every attempt they make to become like Christ. That respect leads to a Christ-countenance in youth, that becomes self-fulfilling.
In your "strategic", please check out and consider, http://www.heifer.org
I find them among the best bang for the buck.
Give Anne a hug and a "Merry Christmas" from a sranger, …. me.
Prayers on her behalf, and yours, are included abundantly.
I would have to confess that I blogged about this the first week it came out, but it took me until last week to make our donation…never could seem to get my wallet close enough to the computer when I was thinking about it. Hope some more people will get with it and donate too!
just so we're clear, this post really had nothing to do with the specific cause (though i think Anne is doing a great thing!) or the fact that some folks blogged about it and didn't give and might feel some conviction (though that may be appropriate).
i was really interested in the bigger question. are more people talking (through social networking) but not actually doing? i don't think that's just a "christian" issue either…though we should hopefully be people who put action to our words.
tony
Wow, looks like someone hit a nerve. This is a fantastic post and I think there is validity behind what you say Tony. I'm a part of the generation in question and here's what I've observed about us. We usually say what others want to hear. We act one way around one group and another way around a different group. This might seem like duplicity but for some reason, we don't see it this way. So we act like giving shoes is great in one social network but totally ignore it in others. The actions speak louder than the words.
I find this trend is disturbing at many levels because of what I've seen it do to Christianity. People see absolutely no disconnect between getting drunk and having illicit sex on Saturday and going to church and raising their hands in worship the morning after (I know volunteers at my church that have done this). This really scares me because the message it sends to non-believers is this: "believe in Jesus, he's kind and caring and will get you into heaven…and don't worry, he won't change anything about your life. You'll still get to have all your wild fun." It's not that people have to clean up to come to Jesus but hopefully if their faith is sincere, their will be some changes in lifestyle.
"Why is there a disconnect between what people say and what people do? "
~~~wonders of Tony
The Chicken Soup Book series noted the old man walking the beach. The tide had gone out stranding zillions of starfish. They would die before the tide returned. The old man walked the beach, bent over, picked up a starfish, and threw it out into the sea.
He repeated this occasionally as he walked.
A young boy asked: "Hey mister, whatcha doing?"
He explained he was saving the starfish.
The boy looked around the beach at the sheer numbers of starfish soon to expire and proclaimed "It doesn't matter".
The old man looked at the starfish in his hand, then at the boy.
As he tossed the starfish in his hand, out to living waters, he told the boy:
"It matters to THIS one!".
There is NO disconnect as suspected above. The problems that surmount us are so great, that we do what we can, when we can, where we can, how we can. Just like Christ, who notably did not miraculously cure every ailing person he met. Nor was THAT considered a disconnect to what HE said, and what He did.
[...] reading Tony Morgan’s post about 50,000 shoes called All Talk and No Action?, where he talked about the correlation between words and action, I was quite disgusted, or more [...]